[Neuroscience] Re: Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
Glen M. Sizemore
(by gmsizemore2 At yahoo.com)
Thu Nov 30 06:29:35 EST 2006
"Entertained by my own EIMC" <licenced.to.be.AEVASIVE At fairyland.org> wrote
news:456e529b$0$24753$5a62ac22 At per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 At yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:456e180a$0$31285$ed362ca5 At nr2.newsreader.com...
>> MJ: I disagree with the whole "mereological fallacy" accusation against
>> "neuroscientists" in general. First, no sensible neuroscientist would
>> argue that the brain acts in isolation from the rest of the organism.
>> GS: The brain doesn't think, and mercury atoms are not silvery and
> Perhaps not; but mercury atoms (not e.g. manganese), acting together, form
> the to us apparently silvery and slippery property of Mercury.
No one has argued against that, but it should be remembered that many of the
promises of reductionism have gone unfulfilled. From whence, for example,
comes the thermodynamic arrow of time? Why isn't all of biology couched in
terms of quantum mechanics? And so forth. But that wasn't what my post was
> You are fond of complaining about the commonplace conceptual confusion
> about "consciousness",
> and related philosophical pitfalls, but you are a too fixed and fanatic a
> follower of Skinner to even attempt to
> offer any semantic or conceptual solutions.
> You are a whinger.
At least when you are spewing ad hominems (along with the implied argumentum
ad populum) you are not writing your usual sophomoric gibberish. That is, at
least, a minor blessing.
More information about the Neur-sci